Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But why make an army with one primary build? Why even make options for things when you intend an army to have only one effective strategy?

I think a few things should happen:

1. With all the changes to cover, line of sight, and everything else...give Firewarriors +1 Ballistic skill. Most other armies (except orks) have Ballistic skill 4+. Why are the ranged firepower superior Tau worse?

2. Firewarriors need toughness 4. Simply put.

3. Markerlight drones at 30 points is...exorbitantly expensive. And statistically, they'll miss half the time too. +1 ballistic skill and a bit cheaper?

4. Seeker missiles: Been covered elsewhere.

5. Broadsides with submunition wouldn't hurt.

6. Pinning: Every race EXCEPT for Tau has pretty much leadership 9/10/fearless. Given that you can only cause one pinning check per unit firing, its hard to pin enemy units; and *much* easier to pin Tau. Carbines really need to have a ROF of 2 at 18. Pinning isn't THAT great.


Tau are supposed to be the best at shooting, but an Ork gunline can outshoot a Tau gunline. 3 units of Lootas, a couple shokk attack guns, and a couple units of shoota boyz moving through cover into 18" can outshoot the crap out of a Tau gunline.

I'm glad a lot of you like the drones as troops concept. It was my thought that the drones wouldn't be compulsory but would be scoring. That would make pirahnas a tactically strong, non-assault, objective seizing strike wing within the Tau force.

As for my thoughts behind the rest of the ideas.To state it shortly, Looking at what is already distinctively Tau, "How would any army maximize the use of what tools they already have?"


@ Dashofpepper- I feel what your saying ,but have to disagree on the toughness 4 idea. It would be to much and counter to the base Tau concept of Tech is what makes them stronger/tougher.
I would love to see the Stealthsuits go up to toughness 4 or some bonus to make up for their nerfing in this edition.

I agree it makes sense to put heavy weapons on drones attached to the FW squads. What I have against it is that it dilutes the core Tau concept and makes Battlesuits less essential.

Lots of things in 40K do not make sense -- they are there to provide a certain aesthetic.

Never said anything about heavy weapon drones with the Fire warriors. Just a few non=overpowered special weapons. The drones bs is already a balancing factor.

Personally, the no organic special weapon support doctrine has never made much sense to me. A fire warrior is in it for life. He's constantly training and going for promotion every 4 years with the end goal of becoming a xv battlesuit pilot.

It seems, IMHO, that a shas 'ui team lead would already be getting fitted with an upper torso weapons chassis to get used to the systems he'll be using as a xv pilot.
This would be a great opportunity to add back story about how each firewarrior is set upon the path best suited for him according to his natural abilities and personality. Example: the more independently minded and daring go into pathfinder squads, then progress up into stealth suits or something along those lines.

As to the battlesuit being less essential, 5th ed has already done that. The Tau are either going to need a price reduction on them or the squads need to get larger. 4-5 Suit squads would better maximize, both, their potential and the markerlight hits they use.

focusedfire wrote:Never said anything about heavy weapon drones with the Fire warriors. Just a few non=overpowered special weapons. The drones bs is already a balancing factor.

Personally, the no organic special weapon support doctrine has never made much sense to me. A fire warrior is in it for life. He's constantly training and going for promotion every 4 years with the end goal of becoming a xv battlesuit pilot.

It seems, IMHO, that a shas 'ui team lead would already be getting fitted with an upper torso weapons chassis to get used to the systems he'll be using as a xv pilot.
This would be a great opportunity to add back story about how each firewarrior is set upon the path best suited for him according to his natural abilities and personality. Example: the more independently minded and daring go into pathfinder squads, then progress up into stealth suits or something along those lines.

As to the battlesuit being less essential, 5th ed has already done that. The Tau are either going to need a price reduction on them or the squads need to get larger. 4-5 Suit squads would better maximize, both, their potential and the markerlight hits they use.

That's my idea too. Actually the Suits should be a bit cheaper, or the same price but have some stuff built-in for free, and have larger units. Allowing larger units is no help when they can't be afforded.

Or just make the suits nastier at range. Why are they BS3? I wouldn't mind if the suit mounted weapons were meaner too.

You need the right balance between offensive firepower, mobility, defensive strength and cost. It means nothing to make suits deadlier if they can still be killed easily. IN fact, it makes them a more valuable target for the enemy.

The problems with suits now are;

1. Widespread cover saves reduce their effectiveness against traditional enemies -- SM.

2. Lack of solid cover makes the JSJ manoeuvre less effective than before so they are more vulnerable.

3. Low toughness and small unit size makes suit units vulnerable to being run off quickly by instant kill weapons and morale failure. Adding more drones helps against instant kill but makes the hiding and morale problem worse.

So one way forwards is to keep suits about as effective as they are now, but make them cheaper and allow larger units.

I think that perhaps making their shield generators go up to 3+, while the shiled drones staying at 4+ but costing less might make a nice option. Though I wish that drones didn't have any effect on a units morale were they destroyed. You take them to take hits. But if they do exactly that you then suffer from a morale test or a negative modifier in cc?

Railguns wrote:But why make an army with one primary build? Why even make options for things when you intend an army to have only one effective strategy?

I wouldn't go as far as "one primary build", but I would encourage a few (slightly) inferior alternatives.

The way I now look at Codices, is that they basically focus on 3 categories of things:
1. core things that they do very well because they are undercosted (e.g. C: SM Tacticals)
2. filler things that they do poorly because they are overcosted (e.g C: SM Assault / C: DA Tacticals)
3. things that they do situationally (e.g. Sternguard w/ Kantor)
of course, the rest are things that they don't do at all...

The above model is pretty helpful in understanding how GW intends for certain Codices to work better (or worse) than others precisely so that various Codices actually *are* different. I no longer believe that every option in a Codex should be equally competitive, or even "good", and accept that some things are there for historical / theme / flavor reasons rather than for pure utility.

So, within the above context, I see Kroot as a core capability, and Combat Drones as a filler, for completeness.
____

Dashofpepper wrote:1. give Firewarriors +1 Ballistic skill. Most other armies (except orks) have Ballistic skill 4+.

2. Firewarriors need toughness 4.

Tau are supposed to be the best at shooting,

Maybe you should just play Spaz Marinz, Hurr!

1. Tau should be BS3 - that's average, and ordinary. Besides, if Tau become BS4, then SM need to be BS5? And Eldar Exarchs BS6? Tau have ordinary BS3 S3 T3 stats and they augment around this with their technology. That's why they all have Sv4+ armor and R30" S5 guns. Not because they're inherently better at shooting.

2. Again Tau should stay T3, which is the correct basic toughness. Otherwise, you want T5 SM and Orks? T8 Monsters & T10 Wraithlords? Tau survive by massed Sv4+, which is very good armor. It means they can generally move and shoot from whereever they please, not being entirely dependent upon cover for their Sv4+.

Tau shouldn't be "the best", merely good. And that's where Tau are today. Where Tau have problems is tied to the narrowness of their list and excessive Transport prices, not their Shooting.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:I agree it makes sense to put heavy weapons on drones attached to the FW squads. What I have against it is that it dilutes the core Tau concept and makes Battlesuits less essential.

I don't understand how adding a couple Special weapons to a FW squad makes Battlesuits obsolete. What it would do is to usefully expand army build options away from the monolithic focus on Suits. Fundamentally, Tau should be about Fire Warrior Troops, and having more effective Drones would go a long way toward that.
____

focusedfire wrote:Never said anything about heavy weapon drones with the Fire warriors.

Just a few non=overpowered special weapons. The drones bs is already a balancing factor.

I believe I advocated FW getting Heavy Gun Drones as an option. Still do.

Definitely, Specials would be highly desirable.

As much as I was disappointed when I first started to playing to see that Tau toughness and BS were less than a Space Marine's, I agree with JohnHwangDD that their stats make sense as is.

People seem to be ragging on ion cannons and sniper drone teams a lot, but I love them. They're especially good at 1000 points (or any points limit vs. Tyranid big bugs...) where railguns are expensive overkill. Not everything should be that one gun you need to have at 2500 points or whatever.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't understand how adding a couple Special weapons to a FW squad makes Battlesuits obsolete. What it would do is to usefully expand army build options away from the monolithic focus on Suits. Fundamentally, Tau should be about Fire Warrior Troops, and having more effective Drones would go a long way toward that.

*Shameless plug alert* Hey John, I'd like for you the take a look at my latest thread, Focusedfires unconventional 1750 Tau (no xvs) list and tell me what you think.

I don't see why you just can't make things equally useful rather than intentionally undercosting things to encourage its use over alternatives because it's fluffy. If people want the fluffy version, they can do it, but if they want some weird divergent force they aren't gimped for not following the rules. I'm not saying that how you see it isn't true(I'm sure that its probably fairly close to what goes on) but still, its an approach that discourages originality.

I can say as a Chaos player who has either utterly destroyed or been utterly destroyed by every Tau army I've faced, a few CC-capable units would be kind of silly to have and wouldn't gel with the rest of what I've seen. Just like how I have access to hardly any horde control or any of the shiny SM guns (Oblitz count for something, granted). No army can do everything well. I know I'm afraid to face Tau because my units generally cost a lot and I'm often outnumbered. If you're having trouble with people assaulting you through DS or weird rules, you're going to know in advance if the other guy is using that or not. Just prepare for it as a possibility. I lost the ability to consolidate into you which scares the hell out of me.

focusedfire wrote:*Shameless plug alert* Hey John, I'd like for you the take a look at my latest thread, Focusedfires unconventional 1750 Tau (no xvs) list and tell me what you think.

I think it's an interesting and unconventional list, but that you'll be challenged in the current environment. The best thing is that it's going to throw your typical opponent for a loop, because their standard "anti-Tau" tactics aren't going to match up with what you've got on the board.
___

Railguns wrote:I don't see why you just can't make things equally useful rather than intentionally undercosting things to encourage its use over alternatives because it's fluffy.

its an approach that discourages originality.

That's OK, most other 40k players have similar challenges understanding why everything can't be equally good within a given list or across multiple lists. Suffice to say, if you don't "get it", you probably won't "get it" for a while.

If you're really tring to figure out why, I would suggest you take a while looking at the SM / BA / DA lists and how they're structured. Because, in each list, there are things which make similar-looking units clearly different, resulting in different optimal builds relative to one another. If you can understand why GW made each of those 3 lists the way that they did, then you can understand why I'm making Kroot more points-efficient than potential Combat Drones.

Suffice to say, the relative efficiencies and inefficiencies *create* originality and differentiation where there wouldn't otherwise be any. It's actually pretty darn clever, and really gave me a lot more respect for the GW design team.
____

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I can say as a Chaos player who has either utterly destroyed or been utterly destroyed by every Tau army I've faced, a few CC-capable units would be kind of silly

I wouldn't sweat it too much. The kind of CC that I'm suggesting to add wouldn't be any worse for you than the Kroot that Tau are already (or should be) taking.

I'm not convinced that over/under costing particular types of units is a deliberate GW policy. It is equally or more likely (thanks to Occam's Razor) to be due to the difficulties of costing things fairly.

For example, in the 4e Tau codex, four new units were introduced -- Piranhas, Space Pope, Vespids and Sniper Drones. Pope and Vespids were majorly overcosted and no-one uses them, so few models are sold. Sniper Drones were arguably overcosted and do not get widely used. It is clearly not in GW's interest to overcost new models they want to sell lots of.

Regarding modifying Tau basic stats -- I don't think this is needed, or justified. Again, it dilutes the flavour and variety of the game to make another army S4, T4, BS4, etc.

BS4 for Crisis suits would be justified for their cost. Alternatively make them cheaper and allow larger units.

Regarding overcosting or undercosting units to make them flavourful. This is probably true and justified in the case of SM where there is a highly flexible vanilla codex plus several alternative codexes.

If a player insists on playing Black Templars or something other than the basic codex, there have to be some measures taken to make the variant SM codexes have any distinct flavour.

That is, I would say, a problem with trying to make 8 different SM armies in 4 codexes when you can make about 7 armies out of the basic codex. (Numbers made up for emphasis.)

Tau are not in the same situation -- in fact they are in the opposite situation where trying to make more than two viable builds out of one codex is a strain.

At John, again I'm sure that this actually occurs, there is evidence, like you've pointed out, supporting it. It doesn't jive well with GW's insistence that they don't particularly care about tourney players. I would like to see Kroot slightly undercosted now considering that their classical foil the Orks got so much better for their cost. However, I will still say that the intentional direction of choices from one or more alternatives to a "fluffy" choice by cost or effectivenes changes is contrary to the creative impulses that drive a game like this.

I don't think that Tournament play enters GW's mind when they make army lists. But they do want particular themes for particular armies, and they "tweak" costs accordingly.

In the SM / MEQ cases, it's more visible as the comparisons are a lot easier.

In the case of Orks, is it any accident that basic Boyz are dirt cheap, promoting a Fluffy (and profitable) Boyz-heavy list?

I don't think Orks troops are a good example of what I'm getting at. Everyone is going to use Ork boyz, because there aren't any other troops to use, besides gretchin screens. But the Ork dex does a good job of armies that aren't green tides work too. You can go deff-wing (which is always difficult in its own right but still an option), kult of speed (trukks got better) and use battlewagons with all sorts of neat options in heavy support. It doesn't particularly punish you for taking something over another alternative beyond what the normal advantages and disadvantages those unit types have. Their are still oddities like Tankbustas but that sort of thing always comes up.

My point is that while trying to make Blood Angels into a shooty force or Tau into a close combat force are silly and against the spirit of the army you chose, it is also silly to intentionally overcost units just because they don't fit into the main strength of an army. Blood Angels still need anti-tank weapons and for now Tau still need something to keep chainsaw wielding crazies from eating their firewarriors. Instead of overcosting them, I would rather limit how many you could take. Make certain units 0-1 or reduce their squad size would be a better option.

No, Orks are a fine example in comparison to Tau. Ork Boyz are good, and people take lots of them. Tau Fire Warriors and Kroot are relatively lacking, so there's less desire to spam loads of Tau Troops. Point for point, Ork Boyz do more, better, than Tau FW or Kroot.

For a very long time, BA Fluff said they were basically a Codex Chapter. It's only 3E in which BA started to play somewhat differently, and 5E in which they were structured differently.

At this point, GW appears to limit 0-1 restrictions to named Special Characters, so that wouldn't work for normal army entries. Adding a super-buff HtH Character to Tau would be even stranger. Besides, GW wants to sell lots of models, and 0-1 goes against that.

I was speaking within terms of an individual codex rather than comparing different codex troops. I just used Blood Angels as an example because people have come to associate them with close combat specialization.

OK, no problem.

Adding combat walker suits or combat drones would not increase the capability of FW.

You have to get the core units to work otherwise adding optional units to cover their deficiencies leads to a situation where the Tau need four units to let one basic unit do its job.

It's this reason mentioned by killkrazy that I see the Tau getting a tech boost.

Most feel pinning is somewhat lacking these days as so many are able to just ignore the rule. This is why I see basic fw weapons getting a movement reducing special rule. It's not that I necessarily want a DoW style snare trap, but how do you improve the basic fw in 5th ed. while keeping them Tau.

As for kroot? How many here would like to see the old mercenary rule for them in improved form?
Something like buyable upgrades that include a rudimentary krak or frag grenade, buyable armor up to 5+ at 1pt per 1pt of save, and an option of the pulse carbines. Each trait is 1 point per model and kroot start out at 6 pts. With the old merc rule their leadership would equal cost per majority models up to a max ldshp of 10.

@KK that is why I initially suggested expanded Drone capability and reduced Transport cost to address the core FW problem of inflexibility.

Reducing transport cost -- this is an opinion of course -- is not enough in itself since (a) skimmer transports are more vulnerable than before and (b) it does not address the vulnerability of FW in H2H or increase their offensive capability. Remember that Fish of Fury is less effective than before.

Expanded drone capability IMO reduces the FW reliance on Suits for heavy firepower. Also, unless the drone carrying capacity of the squad and transport is increased, you take out FWs to add more drones. You end up with a squad a bit like IG or SM tacticals but the HWs are carried by drones.

Gundrone squadrons with heavy weapon drones is a nice idea. It's just I would prefer to solve what I see as core issues before adding new stuff.

I think these issues are just a reflection of a philosophical difference between you and me in terms of how we see Tau and their place in the overall game.

Kilkrazy wrote:Reducing transport cost -- this is an opinion of course -- is not enough in itself since (a) skimmer transports are more vulnerable than before and (b) it does not address the vulnerability of FW in H2H or increase their offensive capability. Remember that Fish of Fury is less effective than before.

Expanded drone capability IMO reduces the FW reliance on Suits for heavy firepower. Also, unless the drone carrying capacity of the squad and transport is increased, you take out FWs to add more drones. You end up with a squad a bit like IG or SM tacticals but the HWs are carried by drones.

Gundrone squadrons with heavy weapon drones is a nice idea. It's just I would prefer to solve what I see as core issues before adding new stuff.

I'd beg to disagree about increasing offensive capability.

First) If the drones on a fish were the drones for the squad, it would effectively upgrade transport capacity by 2.

Second) Not only would the Devilfish carry the new special weapon drones(Giving it flamer and maybe melta capabilities) it could also carry marker drones. We're talking 12 Fire Warriors and 2 drones.

Third) If you increase Fire Warrior effectiveness in any manner you're going to reduce their dependence on the suits. So this argument doesn't hold much weight, imho.

What change would you make to the Fire warriors that would make them less vulnerable to hth? Increase rapidfire range? That by itself wouldn't do enough. IMHO,There would still have to be something else.